List RAG collections and document roots, or delete only an index without removing original documents.
List RAG collections/document roots, or delete only an index. Original documents are retained.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| collection | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely useful scope information: only the index is removed and the original documents are retained, which explains why the delete is not flagged destructive. It does not cover permissions or whether the index can be rebuilt afterward.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single compact sentence that front-loads the two operations and ends with the key retention guarantee. Nothing is padded, though the retention clause could be tightened.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description should explain what 'list' returns and how 'collection' scopes each action. Those gaps leave the delete path ambiguous, which matters for a mutation-capable tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry both parameters. It mentions 'collections/document roots' generically but never explains the 'collection' parameter — whether it is required for delete, optional for list, or what identifiers are accepted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource for each mode: listing RAG collections/document roots and deleting an index. It clarifies scope ('only an index') but never names or contrasts with the obvious siblings lm_rag_index and lm_rag_search, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied through the two verbs, which mirror the action enum (list/delete). There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no condition for choosing delete over re-indexing, and no mention of alternatives such as lm_rag_index or lm_rag_search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.